On Soul

According to Buddhism, there is no permanent self or soul – a contradiction to the Hindu idea of an eternal true self or atman. Yet, both religions believe in rebirth. Hence, one may contest the paradoxical nature of the Buddhist doctrine of reincarnation and question who is reborn and responsible for the karma incurred in previous lifetimes if there is no soul. In this essay, I will endeavour to untangle this dichotomy and argue that although Buddhism thoroughly illustrates life's transient nature, the Hindu concept of atman is more plausible within the context of multiple lives. Nevertheless, both philosophies explain different facets of a larger truth. Furthermore, multiple spiritual vantage points are oftentimes necessary to get closer to the truth. Opposing teachings can only attempt to explain the complex nature of existence, which is ultimately impenetrable by the human intellect.

 Both Hindu and Buddhist theories contain profound spiritual teachings surrounding the nature of existence. Further, it is essential to emphasise that it is inappropriate to completely separate Buddhism from Hinduism because Buddhism grew out of Hinduism.[1] Likewise, many Buddhist principles were formed in direct reaction to Hindu teachings.[2] Bilimoria points out that Indian philosophers do not tend to separate the traditions, rather viewing them as diverse elements within the continuum of Indian philosophy.[3] Thus, atman and no-self theories could be interpreted as two extremes of the same continuum. On one side, we have the Buddhist reality of the dynamic and ever-changing nature of existence; on the other, we have the Hindu reality of a permanent essence that rides the waves of change. These two realities need not be mutually exclusive. The rational intellect does not cope well with paradox, but we may come closest to the truth at the intersection of these opposing realities. 

Buddhism's notions of causality and interdependence hold true, even surrounding its own Hindu origins. The fundamental notion of Buddhism is this idea of impermanence and dependant origination.[4] Thus, Buddhism beautifully expresses life's interdependent, dynamic dance when it states that everything is impermanent and dependent on everything else.[5] In contrast to the Hindu belief in a substantial view of self, Buddhists see the self as a process.[6] For Buddhists, the world consists of interconnected processes, continuously in flux and ultimately without any real essence, which signifies that nothing contains an autonomous and lasting self. Hinduism expresses an opposing view of reality. For Hindus, the soul or atman is permanent and continues throughout each incarnation and ultimately beyond the cycle of death and rebirth.[7] Like the Platonic idea of essence, the atman consists of an immaterial spiritual substance that continues beyond the physical body and into eternity. Further, the atman is in a continual dance with brahman – the impersonal and absolute reality.[8]

In Hindu philosophy, the soul was thought to leave the body during sleep; thus, dreams were considered real journeys, and sleep was of particular importance.[9] During the Vedic era, it was believed that the soul could travel beyond the confines of the physical realm during sleep.[10] If we regard dreams as a metaphor for the soul's journey, the nature of an essence travelling between incarnations begins to make sense. In dreams, we encounter ourselves in various forms, frequently unrecognisable from our current life form. Yet, we intuitively recognise ourselves in these various guises during the dream. Similarly, in dreams, we often encounter characters we recognise as someone known intimately in our current lives – yet they resemble someone or something entirely unknown (for example, dreaming of one's spouse in the form of a spider). What makes an unknown, symbolic representation recognisable is its ineffable essence. 

Buddhism stands alone among the world's religions in its rejection of a soul.[11] Hindu philosophy offers a more unassuming perspective on the capacity of the human intellect to grasp the nature of soul. As Luyster notes,' the true state of the self is neither consciousness nor unconsciousness, and therefore, definitions and concepts simply cannot apply to it. It is incomprehensible, unthinkable, beyond description of any kind.'[12] The word atman originates from the word breath, and the soul was thought to reside in one's chest or heart space.[13] Perhaps this also hints at how the intellect cannot understand the soul, as it exists within the domain of the heart.

Bilimoria writes that for many Hindus 'death is like the backstage dressing room where one discards the body, like a set of clothing to change into another set, which is what reincarnation literally amounts to'.[14] Furthermore, reports of near-death experiences often give uncannily identical descriptions of the soul leaving the body and viewing it from above, often observing actual events that took place while the person was unconscious.[15] Moreover, there have been a considerable number of case studies of children remembering precise details of their past lives that further investigation verifies.[16]Assuming that these documented cases are accurate, the Buddhist theory of no-self does not appear to be plausible. If there is no self, one may rightly question who is doing the observing and remembering.

Many people who have had a near-death experience report a spiritual awakening upon returning to consciousness, usually involving the dissolution of the ego and a sense of communion with all beings.[17] For both Buddhists and Hindus, spiritual enlightenment also tends to involve a form of ego dissolution and a sense of oneness. Bilimoria captures the Hindu notion of ego (jiva) dissolution when he writes, ‘at one level the self is nothing but the jiva (with its constituent body, mind, memory, qualities, activities and so on); at another level, the self may transcend the limitations of jiva and be identified with all beings, in some deeply unique relation they each share, as the common denominator. This latter sense of the self (Self) is better designated by the term atman.’[18]

Although Buddhism is not nihilistic, it is not optimistic about the human condition. For Buddhists, the three marks of existence are impermanence (anitya), no-self (anatman) and suffering (dukkha).[19] In other words, nothing lasts, nothing exists, and everything ultimately ends in suffering. Although these observations are arguably not false; they are not entirely true either. At the risk of sounding sacrilegious, Buddhism's many paths originate from the interpretation of one man's experience of enlightenment. In contrast, Hinduism stems from no single teacher – rather, it stems from a collection of teachings of multiple and unknown origins.[20] Like many religious experiences, the historical Buddha's teachings were filtered through the intellect and limited to the confines of the vocabulary of his disciples. Furthermore, the Buddha did not write down his teachings; instead, they were passed down orally over centuries.[21] Thus, we should not accept his teachings, or any teachings for that matter, as pure and absolute truth. Ultimately, we should attempt to arrive at our own understanding of the truth based on our individual experience and inner knowing – something the historical Buddha firmly encouraged.[22]

To illustrate this, I will share a personal experience that informed my inner knowing and understanding of these concepts. My grandfather and I were exceptionally close. When he developed dementia, he forgot everyone in the family and outwardly became someone hostile and anti-social. Essentially he became unrecognisable from the sweet and lovely man he was. When he passed away, my family asked me to perform his favourite song, 'Danny Boy', at his funeral– an old Irish ballad that he used to play on a cassette tape in the car. As I drove up his driveway the day before his funeral, 'Danny Boy' spontaneously played on my car radio. I had never heard it on the radio before – it was not a popular song. At that moment, I knew my grandfather’s essence had not been extinguished. Towards the end of his life, all of the marks of his existence had disintegrated, yet his essence remained, and I could feel it in the melody. Words do not do essence justice; perhaps we need a vehicle like music to express a person's essence. In other words, essence is an inner knowing which can only be felt by the heart. Perhaps this inner knowing transcends the transient nature of our physical existence that Buddhism observes. All things change, yet somehow, paradoxically, a piece of their beauty or essence remains. 

In conclusion, I believe the Hindu theory of atman and the Buddhist no-self theory are not mutually exclusive in attempting to decipher the true nature of our existence. However, the Hindu theory of atman is more plausible within the context of multiple lives. More importantly, instead of arguing with one another over opposing religious views, we should place the paradoxical pieces of truth together like pieces of a giant jigsaw puzzle to get closer to comprehending the indescribable nature of existence. Ultimately, we must each arrive at our own understanding of these concepts through our inner knowing and individual experience.

Bibliography

Collins, S, Selfless persons : imagery and thought in Theravāda Buddhism. Cambridge ; New York, Cambridge University Press, 1999.

Collins, S, The encyclopedia of religion. New York, Macmillan ; London, 1987.

Luyster, RW, ‘The Concept of the Self in the Upanisads: Its Origin and Symbols’. in Philosophy East and West, 20, 1970, 51.

Bilimoria, P & Deakin University. School Of Humanities. Open Campus Program, The self and its destiny in Hinduism. Geelong, Vic., Deakin University, 1990.

Stevenson, I, Twenty cases suggestive of reincarnation. Charlottesville, University Press Of Virginia, 1974.

Velez, A, ‘Buddha | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy’. in Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, <https://iep.utm.edu/buddha/>.

[1] P.Bilimoria & Deakin University. School Of Humanities. Open Campus Program, The self and its destiny in Hinduism,   Geelong, Vic., Deakin University, 1990.

[2] P.Bilimoria The self and its destiny in Hinduism, 1990.

[3] P.Bilimoria The self and its destiny in Hinduism, 1990.

[4] S.Collins, The encyclopedia of religion, New York, Macmillan ; London, 1987.

[5] A.Velez, ‘Buddha | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy’, in Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

[6] A.Velez, in Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

[7] P.Bilimoria The self and its destiny in Hinduism, 1990.

[8] P.Bilimoria The self and its destiny in Hinduism, 1990.

[9] R.Luyster, ‘The Concept of the Self in the Upanisads: Its Origin and Symbols’, in Philosophy East and West, vol. 20, 1970, 51.

[10] R.Luyster, Philosophy East and West, 1970.

[11] S.Collins, Selfless persons : imagery and thought in Theravāda Buddhism, Cambridge ; New York, Cambridge University Press, 1999.

[12] R.Luyster, Philosophy East and West, 1970, p. 56.

[13] R.Luyster, Philosophy East and West, 1970.

[14] P.Bilimoria The self and its destiny in Hinduism, 1990, p.46.

[15] I.Stevenson, Twenty cases suggestive of reincarnation., Charlottesville, University Press Of Virginia, 1974.

[16] I.Stevenson, Twenty cases suggestive of reincarnation., 1974.

[17] I.Stevenson, Twenty cases suggestive of reincarnation., 1974.

[18] P.Bilimoria The self and its destiny in Hinduism, 1990, p.19.

[19] A.Velez, in Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

[20] P.Bilimoria The self and its destiny in Hinduism, 1990.

[21] S.Collins, The encyclopedia of religion, 1987.

[22] A.Velez, in Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.